DOCSLIB.ORG

Nobody to Shoot? Power, Structure, and Agency: a Dialogue. Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nobody to Shoot? Power, Structure, and Agency: a Dialogue. Journal This article was downloaded by: On: 30 January 2009 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Power Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778749998 Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue Clarissa Hayward a; Steven Lukes b a Washington University in Saint Louis, Political Science, b New York University, Sociology, Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008 To cite this Article Hayward, Clarissa and Lukes, Steven(2008)'Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue',Journal of Power,1:1,5 — 20 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17540290801943364 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17540290801943364 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Power Vol. 1, No. 1, April 2008, 5–20 Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue Clarissa Haywarda* and Steven Lukesb aWashington University in Saint Louis, Political Science; bNew York University, Sociology TaylorRPOW_A_294502.sgm10.1080/17540290801943364Journal0000-0000Original20081000000AprilClarissaHaywardchayward@wustl.edu and& of Article Francis Power (print)/0000-0000Francis 2008 (online)In this dialogue, Clarissa Hayward and Steven Lukes debate the relation among power, social structure, and human agency. The authors converge on the view that not only moral responsibility, but also political responsibility is relevant to the study of power. They disagree about how to analyze difficult cases in which some agents are clearly subject to social constraints on freedom, but no powerful actors seem responsible for their constraint. Keywords: agency; determinacy; power; responsibility; structure Concerns about human agency and about social structure have long been central to the study of power. Beginning with Michel Foucault, contemporary social and political theorists (especially, but not exclusively, theorists who self-identify as postmodernists or poststructuralists) have prob- lematized the relation among these three terms.1 In so doing, they have generated important insights – insights about the normalizing power of constructed social identities, for example – which were not thematized in the postwar power debate in Anglo-American political and social science.2 Yet they have done so while largely neglecting the normative concerns that animated that debate. Indeed, one of the striking oddities about work on power from the middle of the last century to the present day is that these two debates – the latter, which originated with the so-called ‘community power studies’ of the 1950s, and the former, largely inspired by Foucault’s genea- logical works – have developed parallel to, while only rarely engaging, one another.3 The failure of these approaches to confront each other head on represents a loss on both sides. Downloaded At: 02:36 30 January 2009 Participants in the Anglo-American power debate have yet to come to terms with Foucauldian claims about the ways identities, norms, and other social constraints typically thought of as ‘struc- tural’ differentially enable and constrain what human agents can do, and what they can be. At the same time, Foucauldians have yet to articulate a coherent normative account of the grounds on which one might criticize particular power relations, and to elaborate avenues for challenging and changing them.4 In this essay, our aim is to bring these two sets of concerns face to face. We decided to write the essay together, because we share nontrivial premises about how power shapes human free- dom, and about how social theorists and social scientists should study it. We both reject strongly determinist positions, which deny the existence and/or the importance of human agency. At the same time, we both reject naively voluntaristic views, which reduce power to the conscious and intentional actions of agents. What is more, we both share the conviction that analyzing power relations is an inherently evaluative and critical enterprise, one to which questions of freedom, domination, and hierarchy are – and should be – central.5 We decided to structure the essay as a dialogue, however, because important differences sepa- rate our views of power, structure, and agency, and because our aim is in large part to explore and to clarify (if not resolve) those differences. One of us, Steven Lukes, believes the importance of *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1754-0291 print/ISSN 1754-0305 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17540290801943364 http://www.informaworld.com 6 C. Hayward and S. Lukes the notion of responsibility to claims about power makes the latter, necessarily, an agent-centered concept. The powerful, by this view, are those actors (individual or collective) who can reason- ably be held responsible for limits imposed on the freedom of other actors. The other, Clarissa Hayward, thinks that because constraints typically identified as ‘structural’ are social in origin, and because their effects are very often amenable to change, they are relevant to the normative project that drives the power debate. That project is badly served, her claim is, when those who study power fail to analyze and to evaluate structural constraints on freedom that are significant, inegalitarian, and remediable. The essay proceeds as follows. In the first and second sections, we present, in abbreviated form, our arguments – first articulated in PRV and DFP – about the relation among power, social structure, and human agency. In the third and fourth, we further focus our disagreement, respond- ing to each other’s principal claims. The exchange helps to clarify the difference between our views, and it brings to light important points of agreement. Perhaps most significant among the latter is our shared belief that multiple forms of responsibility are relevant to the analysis of power relations: not just moral responsibility, understood as liability, or worthiness of blame (or of praise), but also political responsibility for those outcomes to which multiple agents contribute, without any necessarily being ‘at fault.’ The former – our differences – center on how to grapple with those cases in which some agents seem clearly to be subject to power, but no identifiable actors seem responsible for their constraint. Should such cases be analyzed, as Hayward has suggested, using the language of power and of domination, or are the latter terms, as Lukes has argued, necessarily ‘agency’ terms? 1. Power and agency (Steven Lukes) In his fine book Power: A Philosophical Analysis, Peter Morriss asks an excellent and insuffi- ciently addressed question: ‘Why do we need concepts of power?’ (2002, ch.6) What jobs, in other words, do we want concepts of power to do? What is our purpose in studying power? Morriss’ answer is threefold. We want to know, in practical contexts, what our capacities and the capacities of others are, in order to achieve desired outcomes. (As Brian Barry has remarked, the Downloaded At: 02:36 30 January 2009 CIA needs to know whom to bribe). We want to know, in moral contexts, whom to hold respon- sible (whom to blame, and I would add, whom to praise) for outcomes that affect the interests of others. Moreover, we want to know, in evaluative contexts, when we are judging social systems, to what extent they give their citizens freedom from the power of others, and to what extent citi- zens have the power to meet their own needs or wants. Morriss’ question and his answers relate to power in the general sense of ‘the capacity to bring about effects.’ It is a useful exercise. His answers, however, as we will see, need some refinement and extension. In my book, PRV, I focus, more narrowly than does Morriss, on power over others and, more narrowly still, on power over others that is dominating, and yet more narrowly still, on what I call the third dimension of such power, where the power consists, not in prevailing over the opposition of others, nor in imposing an agenda on them, but in influencing their desires, beliefs and judg- ments in ways that work against their interests.6 This third dimension of power is usually hidden from direct observation; it has to be inferred via the postulation of relevant counterfactuals, to the effect that but for the exercise of the power in question those subject to it would have thought and acted otherwise, in accordance with their ‘real’ interests. Considering this third dimension of power, raises two sets of difficult questions. The first concerns the ‘subjects’ of power: that is, those actors or agents who are subject to it. The central set of questions here centers on how to justify the ascription of real interests to such subjects. The second set of questions raised by power’s third dimension concerns the ‘sources’ of power: that is, those agents or actors who have or who exercise power. Here the central set of questions centers Journal of Power 7 on whether power is to be conceived as located in agents, individual or collective, or, alternatively, in impersonal structures.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Patriotism” the Answer?
    Democracy’s Identity Problem: Is “Constitutional Patriotism” the Answer? Clarissa Rile Hayward NOVEMBER 2006, PAPER NUMBER 27 © 2006 Unpublished by Clarissa Rile Hayward The Occasional Papers of the School of Social Science are versions of talks given at the School’s weekly Thursday Seminar. At these seminars, Members present work-in-progress and then take questions. There is often lively conversation and debate, some of which will be included with the papers. We have chosen papers we thought would be of interest to a broad audience. Our aim is to capture some part of the cross-disciplinary conversations that are the mark of the School’s programs. While Members are drawn from specific disciplines of the social sciences—anthropology, economics, sociology and political science—as well as history, philosophy, literature and law, the School encourages new approaches that arise from exposure to different forms of interpretation. The papers in this series differ widely in their topics, methods, and disciplines. Yet they concur in a broadly humanistic attempt to under- stand how, and under what conditions, the concepts that order experience in different cultures and societies are produced, and how they change. Clarissa Rile Hayward is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, where she teaches political theory in the political science department. Her research and teach- ing interests include democratic theory; theories of identity, power, and justice; urban politics; and political aspects of education. Hayward was a Member of the School of Social Science and a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at IAS in 2005-2006. During her year at the Institute, she worked on a book manuscript, tentatively titled Cities and Citizens, which explores the ways that democratic state actors shape political identities through institutions that racialize and privatize urban space.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Agency: an Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents Elizabeth Kaye Victor University of South Florida, [email protected]
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholar Commons | University of South Florida Research University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2012 Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents Elizabeth Kaye Victor University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Victor, Elizabeth Kaye, "Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4246 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents by Elizabeth Kaye Victor A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Rebecca Kukla, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Stephen Turner, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Bryce Hueber, Ph.D Douglas Jesseph, Ph.D. Walter Nord, Ph.D. Date of Approval: May 16, 2012 Keywords: Group Agency, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, Human Resource Management Copyright © 2012, Elizabeth Kaye Victor Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my father and friend, Joe.
    [Show full text]
  • Econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Stör, Lorenz Working Paper Conceptualizing power in the context of climate change: A multi-theoretical perspective on structure, agency & power relations VÖÖ Discussion Paper, No. 5/2017 Provided in Cooperation with: Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie e.V. (VÖÖ), Heidelberg Suggested Citation: Stör, Lorenz (2017) : Conceptualizing power in the context of climate change: A multi-theoretical perspective on structure, agency & power relations, VÖÖ Discussion Paper, No. 5/2017, Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie (VÖÖ), Heidelberg This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/150540 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ www.econstor.eu VÖÖ Discussion Papers VÖÖ Discussion Papers · ISSN 2366-7753 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuration Theory Amid Negative and Positive Criticism
    Structuration theory amid negative and positive criticism Wafa Kort Ligue laboratory Assistant at ISG Tunis E-mail : [email protected] Jamel Eddine Gharbi Ligue laboratory Lecturer at FSEG Jendouba E-mail : [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper tries to sum up the criticism that turns around structuration theory to help the applications in MIS field. The literature review allow to advance three categories of criticisms: (1) the conflation of structure and human agent, (2) the complexity and the outspread of the theory that lead to contradictions, and (3) the lack of assumptions and methodological guidelines. Some recommendations are given to direct future researches. Key words: Structures, Agency, Duality of structural, Time-space dimension. Introduction Structuration theory is more and more used in the field of management information system. In fact, it offers the possibility to conceptualize IT artifact in a dynamic way and goes beyond the deterministic conceptualization in previous studies. The concept of the duality of structure is the main concept in structuration theory. It means that structural properties are at the same time the result and medium of practices which are organized in a recursive way. It allows a new perspective of the relationship between technology and user. Hence, the use of structuration theory in the IS field aims to provide a theoretical approach that helps the understanding of the interaction between user and information technology, the implications of these interactions, and the way to control their consequences (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2005). More specifically, structuration theory allows human agency to surface and gives them the power to explain the difference of outcome in presence of technology (Boudreau and Robey, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • The Difference States Make: Democracy, Identity, and the American City Author(S): Clarissa Rile Hayward Source: the American Political Science Review, Vol
    The Difference States Make: Democracy, Identity, and the American City Author(s): Clarissa Rile Hayward Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 501-514 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593020 Accessed: 29/01/2009 21:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org American Political Science Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Agency in Organizational Contexts of Women in Stem
    Michigan Technological University Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Reports - Open Reports 2015 STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM Sidouane Patcha Lum Michigan Technological University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Copyright 2015 Sidouane Patcha Lum Recommended Citation Patcha Lum, Sidouane, "STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM", Master's Thesis, Michigan Technological University, 2015. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/958 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM By Sidouane Patcha Lum A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In Rhetoric and Technical Communication MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2015 ©2015 Sidouane Patcha Lum This thesis has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Rhetoric and Technical Communication. Department of Humanities Thesis Advisor: Dr. M. Ann Brady Committee Member: Dr. Patricia Sotirin Committee Member: Dr. Robert Johnson Committee Member: Dr. Sarah Green Department Chair: Dr. Ronald Strickland To my parents With Love and Gratitude TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Theorizing Conservative Egalitarianism by Erin Baribeau a Disserta
    Taxpayers and Homeowners, Forgotten Men, and Citizen-Workers: Theorizing Conservative Egalitarianism by Erin Baribeau A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) in the University of Michigan 2014 Doctoral Committee: Professor Lisa J. Disch (Chair) Professor Pamela Brandwein Professor Robert Mickey Professor Matthew D. Lassiter Copyright Erin Baribeau 2014 Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Lisa Disch for her inspiration and unflagging support and guidance, both throughout my graduate career and at every step in the writing of this dissertation. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Pamela Brandwein and Robert Mickey, both of whom have played a tremendous role in sparking my research interests, and in pushing me to be more precise when developing and articulating my ideas and arguments. Matthew Lassiter has provided great clarity and much needed historical insight for the framing of this project, and to him I am greatly indebted. The process of developing, clarifying, and revising this dissertation was truly a collective effort. For their help, I thank Danielle LaVaque-Manty, Scott Beal at the Sweetland Center for Writing, my friends and colleagues in the Political Theory Workshop at Michigan, my Fall 2013 Sweetland Dissertation Writing Group, and participants at the "Theory in Black and White" panel at the 2014 Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, and the "Race in North America" panel at the 2014 Meeting of the Western Political Science Association. For their generous financial support for research and travel, I also thank the Department of Political Science at Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Cheat Sheet on Structuration Theory
    Voice or Chatter? Orientation Webinar, IT for Change Handout 3: Cheat Sheet on Structuration Theory 1. What is structure according to Giddens? According to Giddens, structure is a sum of “rules and resources, organized as properties of social systems” that exists only as structural properties (1984, p. 25). Structure for Giddens is both medium and outcome as it is created through process. Thus, social life is perceived as process and not product. Structuration looks at norms as value-based benchmarks emerging out of the coming together of formal rules and informal and implicit codes. It is not just the stated rules that count but how bureaucracy interprets these things. 2. How does Giddens define agency? “Agency refers not to the intentions people have in doing things but to their capability of doing those things in the first place (which is why agency implies power: cr. the Oxford English Dictionary definition of an agent, as 'one who exerts power or produces an effect'). Agency concerns events of which an individual is the perpetrator, in the sense that the individual could, at any phase in a given sequence of conduct, have acted differently. Whatever happened would not have happened if that individual had not intervened. Action is a continuous process, a flow...” (Giddens, 1984, p.9) 3. How is power conceived in Giddensian terms? Like Foucault (1979), Giddens' views of power is relational and based on a dialectic of control in which “all forms of dependence offer some resources whereby those who are subordinate can influence the activities of their supervisors” (Giddens, 1984, p.16).
    [Show full text]
  • De-Facing Power Clarissa Rile Hayward Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 0521780799 - De-Facing Power Clarissa Rile Hayward Frontmatter More information De-Facing Power In this major contribution to the power debate, Clarissa Rile Hayward challenges the prevailing view which treats power as something powerful people have and use. Rather than seeing it as having a “face,” she consid- ers power as a complex network of social boundaries – norms, identities, institutions – which define both the field of action and the individual’s freedom within it, for the “powerful” and “powerless” alike. Hayward suggests that the critical analysis of power relations should focus on the ways in which these relationships affect people’s capacities to help shape the institutions and practices that govern their lives. Using a detailed comparative analysis of the relationships within two ethnically diverse educational settings – one in a low-income, predominantly African- American, urban school, the other in an affluent, predominantly white, suburban school – this book develops a compelling account of the concept of power in terms of networks of practices and relations. is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521780799 - De-Facing Power Clarissa Rile Hayward Frontmatter More information Contemporary Political Theory Series Editor Ian Shapiro Editorial Board Russell Hardin Stephen Holmes Jeffrey Isaac John Keane Elizabeth Kiss Susan Okin Phillipe Van Parijs Phillip Pettit As the twenty-first century begins, major new political challenges have arisen at the same time as some of the most enduring dilemmas of polit- ical association remain unresolved. The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War reflect a victory for democratic and liberal values, yet in many of the western countries that nurtured those values there are severe problems of urban decay, class and racial conflict, and failing political legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • CLARISSA RILE HAYWARD Professor of Political Science Washington University One Brookings Drive 207 Seigle Hall St
    CLARISSA RILE HAYWARD Professor of Political Science Washington University One Brookings Drive 207 Seigle Hall St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 [email protected] EDUCATION Yale University Ph.D., With Distinction, Political Science, December, 1998 M.A. and M. Phil, Political Science, June, 1994 Princeton University B.A., Summa Cum Laude, Politics, June, 1988 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Washington University in Saint Louis Professor of Political Science, 2018-present Associate Professor of Political Science, 2007-2018 Affiliated faculty: American Culture Studies, Philosophy, Urban Studies Ohio State University Associate Professor of Political Science, 2006-2007 Assistant Professor of Political Science, 1999-2006 Affiliated faculty: Comparative Studies, Moritz College of Law SELECTED AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS September 2017 – June 2018 Fellow in Residence, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University September 2017 – June 2018 Senior Fellow, Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University May – August 2017 Washington University Summer Faculty Research Grant June 2016 Washington University Center for the Humanities Summer Research Seed Grant 2 November 2015 “Deconstructing Ferguson” Working Group Grant (funded by the MacArthur Foundation and organized through the Yale Law School Justice Collaboratory, Yale ISPS Center for the Study of Inequality, and the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, with Colin Gordon) June 2015 Washington University Center for the Humanities “Divided
    [Show full text]
  • OPPRESSION and RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION STUDIES in SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Series Editor: Norman K
    OPPRESSION AND RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION STUDIES IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Series Editor: Norman K. Denzin Recent Volumes: Volumes 1À35: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 36: Blue Ribbon Papers: Interactionism: The Emerging Landscape Volume 37: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 38: Blue Ribbon Papers: Behind the Professional Mask: The Self-Revelations of Leading Symbolic Interactionists Volume 39: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 40: 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 41: Radical Interactionism on the Rise Volume 42: Revisiting Symbolic Interaction in Music Studies and New Interpretive Works Volume 43: Symbolic Interaction and New Social Media Volume 44: Contributions from European Symbolic Interactionists: Reflections on Methods Volume 45: Contributions from European Symbolic Interactionists: Conflict and Cooperation Volume 46: The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? Volume 47: Symbolic Interactionist Takes on Music STUDIES IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION VOLUME 48 OPPRESSION AND RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION EDITED BY GIL RICHARD MUSOLF Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA United Kingdom À North America À Japan India À Malaysia À China Emerald Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2017 Copyright r 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors.
    [Show full text]